Multi-Billionaire Oprah Whines About Sexism & Income Inequality At DNC

[Toni]

Really? Job levels in Poland and China do not correspond to level of earning? Money? I don’t think that’s correct. Money in China and Poland dues not purchase extra tutors? Enrichment opportunities? Influence?

That dues not seem correct to me.

Because your faith is blinding you.

That's not what I said. What I said is that despite the systems doing everything they could to stamp out intergenerational effects they persist anyway. They obtained no benefit from the money their parents no longer had--yet still ended up in higher skill jobs than the offspring of parents who had been in low skill jobs.

Wow. It’s almost as though family connections count for nothing. Or that the aftermath of World Wars does not leave holes in job markets that allow people who might not previously been considered for being snapped up, especially if they have family connections.

Family connections?! What is that supposed to mean? When the system got upended those connections didn't fare any better. I'm looking at China as that's the one I'm more aware of. The old connections were in just as bad a position as they were. After the cultural revolution the only connections that mattered were to the communists.

People hire people with whom they share some kind of connection, which is why it is so valuable to get into certain clubs, colleges, neighborhoods, fraternities, sororities, etc. or to have the same family name as someone who is somehow connected to your family, etc. I understand the impulse to want to hire someone who is in someway familiar, the same way we develop brand loyalty. There are so many unknowns when you hire someone. If you know something about them, there’s that much less uncertainty. And if you know their family, it’s added incentive for them to do a good job to avoid embarrassing their parents, etc. There is a reason nepotism persists.

This is even more true during and after times of upheaval.

It is human nature to prefer the familiar, and to want to look out for family and friends.

Once again you are blinded by your faith and fail to comprehend the situation. Those connection do you no good when they aren't in a position to hire.

Besides, I was talking about intergenerational effects.

I’m talking about inter generational effects: hiring someone’s son or grandson or nephew.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why did you write that? It is an invention from your imagination. It is impossible to see any such thing in this thread, because it never happened. Who do you think you're talking about? Who are these so-called "people who insist most loudly that the only proper way to choose which applicants should be accepted into medical schools is to use only GPA and MCAT scores"? Nobody in this thread insisted anything of the sort, "most loudly" or otherwise. You made it up, Ms. "You are making a LOT of assumptions about my motivations and thought process".

Really?

This subject is being discussed here and in other threads because people with slightly lower scores (minorities) are being chosen over people with slightly higher scores (whites and Asians) and they say that is reverse discrimination. How you haven't seen that baffles me.

First, the differences are not "slightly". They need to be interpreted in the context of the scores that are admitted, not of the total range of the test.

Second, we are not saying that only GPA and MCAT should matter. Rather, we are saying that we find it extremely suspicious that the other factors which are conveniently not documented cause the selection process to skew in exactly the fashion that they claim is fair.

1) All factors should be documented.

2) Admissions should be blind to factors such as race. To the extent there is a relevant factor you document it.

What people in this thread have argued is that a member of an unfavored race typically needs higher GPA/MCAT scores than a member of a favored race needs in order to have an equal chance of getting admitted, and that this implies applicants of unfavored races are being racially discriminated against, unless there is some additional axis that each student's suitability is being measured along and applicants of unfavored races are typically inferior along that axis. You have been in any number of exchanges with some other member who said something to you along those lines and challenged you to prove Asians are inferior at whatever it is you think schools should also take into account, and your answer is inevitably to falsely accuse him of insisting that schools should only use grades and test scores. That is an illogical answer.

How is that different???

You are seeing the world in binary. Personally, I favor a middle ground: other factors are allowed but they must be transparent.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Can you quote what those white men said that you interpret as "express their resentment of no longer being first in line"?......

Yes, I can quote them. I will go one better and quote them. One of those white men (one of my brothers) who said "Why is it that us white guys are no longer considered first"? I have heard "I have to hope some minority or girl doesn't apply so I have a chance".

There is no mind-reading involved.

Obviously he does not consider himself able to compete on a level playing field.

That is the opposite of what we want--we want a level playing field.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Well, in the first place, no, they don't say it's reverse discrimination; they say it's discrimination. "Reverse discrimination" is a leftist term-of-art. I just "Advanced searched" the phrase over a couple of years of IIDB and everybody using it was a leftist. Those are words they put in the mouths of non-leftists for some leftist rhetorical purpose.

Another thing you're wrong about.

The term reverse discrimination arose in the seventies. It's what the right wing called affirmative action.

No.

It's what happens when you take it too far.

 

[Bomb#20]

Another thing you're wrong about.

The term reverse discrimination arose in the seventies. It's what the right wing called affirmative action.

No doubt. The seventies were when left-wingers were still calling their own opinions "politically correct". Don't you think "politically correct" has become a rightist term-of-art?

Political correctness: how the right invented a phantom enemy | Moira Weigel

The long read: For 25 years, invoking this vague and ever-shifting nemesis has been a favourite tactic of the right – and Donald Trump’s victory is its greatest triumph

www.theguardian.com

“Politically correct” became a kind of in-joke among American leftists – something you called a fellow leftist when you thought he or she was being self-righteous.​

The thing to keep in mind about in-jokes is that they're funny. If there hadn't been any of the hard-left claiming their own position was the politically correct one in the first place, then it wouldn't have been funny when the moderate-left mocked them.

 

[Politesse]

They'll still be complaining about the "political correctness" of the Left when Trump's government is literally jailing all the "gender ideologists" as pedophiles.

 

[ZiprHead]

“Politically correct” became a kind of in-joke among American leftists – something you called a fellow leftist when you thought he or she was being self-righteous.

That was long after it became a thing amongst the right. I assume you read the article. Or did you just skim until you found something to support your explanation of the term's usage?

The thing to keep in mind about in-jokes is that they're funny. If there hadn't been any of the hard-left claiming their own position was the politically correct one in the first place, then it wouldn't have been funny when the moderate-left mocked them.

You're going to have to point me to examples of the bolded because I can't think of any and it was not mentioned in the article.

 

[Bomb#20]

What they are not interested in is propping up a narrative that feeds the grievances of white men who absolutely resent no longer being first in line for all good things.

You know that's an ad hominem argument, don't you, and racist to boot?

An observation is not an argument. Since you have not demonstrated that observation exhibits antagonism or prejudice against white men, it is not clear how anyone could know that it is racist.

You appear to be relying on the premise that nobody knows anything until I personally demonstrate it. Any reasonable person who is fluent in English, has basic reading comprehension skills, and is aware that the context was a discussion of Affirmative Action, can tell her statement exhibits prejudice against white men simply by reading it. It isn't rocket science.

Tony is smearing white men who don't want to be second-class citizens as wanting everyone else to be a second-class citizen. She does not have evidence that they do -- it's an illogical inference for the same reason "I don't owe you money." does not imply "You owe me money.". It is prejudiced against white men because wanting everyone else to be a second-class citizen is a negative trait, and she is pre-judging a subset of white men as having that negative trait, without evidence against them, based only on color, sex, and uppity refusal to accept second-class citizen status.

And that's racist because she would not smear black men who who don't want to be second-class citizens as wanting everyone else to be a second-class citizen. She would not interpret uppity refusal to accept second-class citizen status as evidence of having that negative trait, in an uppity person who's black, or some other race she favors. She talks as though white men have no right to be uppity, no right to be first-class citizens, even though black men do. Assigning rights based on race is racist. She is treating whiteness as if it were a a form of guilt, an Original Sin that can only be expiated by embracing the One True Faith and voluntarily accepting the second-class citizenship it assigns. That implies white men are racially inferior. Treating a race as inferior is racist.

This is all nonsensical, since no one is treating white men as second-class citizens. What is happening instead is that many white men feel as if they are being treated as second-class citizens because of positive goods like DEi. They look at life as a zero-sum game: unless they are always on top, some Other has taken what is their rightful due.

Nobody owns the term "second-class citizen", so you'll define it as you please and debates over who is or isn't treated as one will go nowhere. So let's break this down into two parts.

1. I'll coin a new term. For decades white people have been Approved Racial Discrimination Targets Of Government. (See, for example, Fullilove v. Klutznick, US v. Paradise, Metro Broadcasting v. FCC). Let us call such people "ardtogs". More recently, Asians have also become ardtogs. (Grutter v. Bollinger.) Back in the benighted times before the Civil Rights era, black people and American Indians were ardtogs. By and large, they didn't like it. Most people do not want to be ardtogs.

Tony is smearing white men who don't want to be ardtogs as wanting everyone else to be an ardtog. She does not have evidence that they do -- it's an illogical inference for the same reason "I don't owe you money." does not imply "You owe me money.". It is prejudiced against white men because wanting everyone else to be an ardtog is a negative trait, and she is pre-judging a subset of white men as having that negative trait, without evidence against them, based only on color, sex, and uppity refusal to accept ardtog status.

And that's racist because she would not smear black men who who don't want to be ardtogs as wanting everyone else to be an ardtog. She would not interpret uppity refusal to accept ardtog status as evidence of having that negative trait, in an uppity person who's black, or some other race she favors. She talks as though white men have no right to be uppity, no right to be non-ardtogs, even though black men do. Assigning rights based on race is racist. She is treating whiteness as if it were a a form of guilt, an Original Sin that can only be expiated by embracing the One True Faith and voluntarily accepting the artogship it assigns. That implies white men are racially inferior. Treating a race as inferior is racist.

2. Irrespective of the lack of an objective criterion for "second-class citizen", ardtogs of all races widely perceive themselves to be "second-class citizens", due to being ardtogs. This is a sufficient explanation for an ardtog perceiving himself as a "second-class citizen". An additional explanation, such as "They look at life as a zero-sum game: unless they are always on top, some Other has taken what is their rightful due.", is an unnecessary hypothesis. And you would not accuse a 1950's-era black ardtog who saw himself as a "second-class citizen" of thinking so only because he looked at life as a zero-sum game and felt it his rightful due to be always on top.

 

[Rhea]

1. I'll coin a new term. For decades white people have been Approved Racial Discrimination Targets Of Government. (See, for example, Fullilove v. Klutznick

Let’s look that up

Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448, was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the U.S. Congress could constitutionally use its spending power to remedy the effects of past discrimination. The case arose as a suit against the enforcement of provisions in a 1977 spending bill that required 10% of federal funds going towards public works programs to go to minority-owned companies.

So, to sum up - a policy that directed 10% of spending to be spent on 11.5% of the population makes the other 88.5% of the population who is receiving 90% of the spending into “Approved Racial Discrimination Targets”

Your math is not mathing, and so your made up definition is ridiculous. Those poor, unfortunate, racially targeted recipients of 90% of the spending!!

 

[Toni]

What they are not interested in is propping up a narrative that feeds the grievances of white men who absolutely resent no longer being first in line for all good things.

You know that's an ad hominem argument, don't you, and racist to boot?

An observation is not an argument. Since you have not demonstrated that observation exhibits antagonism or prejudice against white men, it is not clear how anyone could know that it is racist.

You appear to be relying on the premise that nobody knows anything until I personally demonstrate it. Any reasonable person who is fluent in English, has basic reading comprehension skills, and is aware that the context was a discussion of Affirmative Action, can tell her statement exhibits prejudice against white men simply by reading it. It isn't rocket science.

Tony is smearing white men who don't want to be second-class citizens as wanting everyone else to be a second-class citizen. She does not have evidence that they do -- it's an illogical inference for the same reason "I don't owe you money." does not imply "You owe me money.". It is prejudiced against white men because wanting everyone else to be a second-class citizen is a negative trait, and she is pre-judging a subset of white men as having that negative trait, without evidence against them, based only on color, sex, and uppity refusal to accept second-class citizen status.

And that's racist because she would not smear black men who who don't want to be second-class citizens as wanting everyone else to be a second-class citizen. She would not interpret uppity refusal to accept second-class citizen status as evidence of having that negative trait, in an uppity person who's black, or some other race she favors. She talks as though white men have no right to be uppity, no right to be first-class citizens, even though black men do. Assigning rights based on race is racist. She is treating whiteness as if it were a a form of guilt, an Original Sin that can only be expiated by embracing the One True Faith and voluntarily accepting the second-class citizenship it assigns. That implies white men are racially inferior. Treating a race as inferior is racist.

This is all nonsensical, since no one is treating white men as second-class citizens. What is happening instead is that many white men feel as if they are being treated as second-class citizens because of positive goods like DEi. They look at life as a zero-sum game: unless they are always on top, some Other has taken what is their rightful due.

Nobody owns the term "second-class citizen", so you'll define it as you please and debates over who is or isn't treated as one will go nowhere. So let's break this down into two parts.

1. I'll coin a new term. For decades white people have been Approved Racial Discrimination Targets Of Government. (See, for example, Fullilove v. Klutznick, US v. Paradise, Metro Broadcasting v. FCC). Let us call such people "ardtogs". More recently, Asians have also become ardtogs. (Grutter v. Bollinger.) Back in the benighted times before the Civil Rights era, black people and American Indians were ardtogs. By and large, they didn't like it. Most people do not want to be ardtogs.

Tony is smearing white men who don't want to be ardtogs as wanting everyone else to be an ardtog. She does not have evidence that they do -- it's an illogical inference for the same reason "I don't owe you money." does not imply "You owe me money.". It is prejudiced against white men because wanting everyone else to be an ardtog is a negative trait, and she is pre-judging a subset of white men as having that negative trait, without evidence against them, based only on color, sex, and uppity refusal to accept ardtog status.

And that's racist because she would not smear black men who who don't want to be ardtogs as wanting everyone else to be an ardtog. She would not interpret uppity refusal to accept ardtog status as evidence of having that negative trait, in an uppity person who's black, or some other race she favors. She talks as though white men have no right to be uppity, no right to be non-ardtogs, even though black men do. Assigning rights based on race is racist. She is treating whiteness as if it were a a form of guilt, an Original Sin that can only be expiated by embracing the One True Faith and voluntarily accepting the artogship it assigns. That implies white men are racially inferior. Treating a race as inferior is racist.

2. Irrespective of the lack of an objective criterion for "second-class citizen", ardtogs of all races widely perceive themselves to be "second-class citizens", due to being ardtogs. This is a sufficient explanation for an ardtog perceiving himself as a "second-class citizen". An additional explanation, such as "They look at life as a zero-sum game: unless they are always on top, some Other has taken what is their rightful due.", is an unnecessary hypothesis. And you would not accuse a 1950's-era black ardtog who saw himself as a "second-class citizen" of thinking so only because he looked at life as a zero-sum game and felt it his rightful due to be always on top.

I’m not smearing anybody. What I wrote is that (some) white men perceive not always being first in line for all good things as being discriminated against when really, what has happened is that ever so slightly, the playing field is more level for those who are not white and male.

That’s not smearing anybody. If anyone is doing the smearing, it’s you, by time and again demonstrating that (some) white men perceive not being universally #1 as being discriminated against.

That said, I have long had some concerns that as girls and young women are being encouraged to explore math and science, boys and young men feel they are being pushed aside. As girls and persons of color and members of the LGBTQ community have gained acceptance, (some) white boys anbd young men are feeling pushed to the side. That’s not good—I know this as someone who was told often—by male teachers, no less, that it wasn’t good for girls to be smarter than boys, that boys were ‘naturally’ better at math and science—while I easily had the highest grades—and was told I got lucky. Not good job but that 100% is because you’re lucky.
Abd I was lucky to have parents who mostly did not have those attitudes and encouraged me to excel in those areas.

We need to do better in not discouraging ( white boys) anyone as we encourage those who had traditionally been excluded.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

The USA definitely has a large group of second class citizens. Famous people such as Arnold Schwarzenegger are part of this group. These are people who are American citizens, but are ineligible to become POTUS, because of a weird rule about "natural born citizens".

 

[laughing dog]

What they are not interested in is propping up a narrative that feeds the grievances of white men who absolutely resent no longer being first in line for all good things.

You know that's an ad hominem argument, don't you, and racist to boot?

An observation is not an argument. Since you have not demonstrated that observation exhibits antagonism or prejudice against white men, it is not clear how anyone could know that it is racist.

You appear to be relying on the premise that nobody knows anything until I personally demonstrate it. Any reasonable person who is fluent in English, has basic reading comprehension skills, and is aware that the context was a discussion of Affirmative Action, can tell her statement exhibits prejudice against white men simply by reading it. It isn't rocket science.

Tony is smearing white men who don't want to be second-class citizens as wanting everyone else to be a second-class citizen. She does not have evidence that they do -- it's an illogical inference for the same reason "I don't owe you money." does not imply "You owe me money.". It is prejudiced against white men because wanting everyone else to be a second-class citizen is a negative trait, and she is pre-judging a subset of white men as having that negative trait, without evidence against them, based only on color, sex, and uppity refusal to accept second-class citizen status.

And that's racist because she would not smear black men who who don't want to be second-class citizens as wanting everyone else to be a second-class citizen. She would not interpret uppity refusal to accept second-class citizen status as evidence of having that negative trait, in an uppity person who's black, or some other race she favors. She talks as though white men have no right to be uppity, no right to be first-class citizens, even though black men do. Assigning rights based on race is racist. She is treating whiteness as if it were a a form of guilt, an Original Sin that can only be expiated by embracing the One True Faith and voluntarily accepting the second-class citizenship it assigns. That implies white men are racially inferior. Treating a race as inferior is racist.

This is all nonsensical, since no one is treating white men as second-class citizens. What is happening instead is that many white men feel as if they are being treated as second-class citizens because of positive goods like DEi. They look at life as a zero-sum game: unless they are always on top, some Other has taken what is their rightful due.

Nobody owns the term "second-class citizen", so you'll define it as you please and debates over who is or isn't treated as one will go nowhere. So let's break this down into two parts.

1. I'll coin a new term. For decades white people have been Approved Racial Discrimination Targets Of Government. (See, for example, Fullilove v. Klutznick, US v. Paradise, Metro Broadcasting v. FCC). Let us call such people "ardtogs". More recently, Asians have also become ardtogs. (Grutter v. Bollinger.) Back in the benighted times before the Civil Rights era, black people and American Indians were ardtogs. By and large, they didn't like it. Most people do not want to be ardtogs.

Tony is smearing white men who don't want to be ardtogs as wanting everyone else to be an ardtog. She does not have evidence that they do -- it's an illogical inference for the same reason "I don't owe you money." does not imply "You owe me money.". It is prejudiced against white men because wanting everyone else to be an ardtog is a negative trait, and she is pre-judging a subset of white men as having that negative trait, without evidence against them, based only on color, sex, and uppity refusal to accept ardtog status.

And that's racist because she would not smear black men who who don't want to be ardtogs as wanting everyone else to be an ardtog. She would not interpret uppity refusal to accept ardtog status as evidence of having that negative trait, in an uppity person who's black, or some other race she favors. She talks as though white men have no right to be uppity, no right to be non-ardtogs, even though black men do. Assigning rights based on race is racist. She is treating whiteness as if it were a a form of guilt, an Original Sin that can only be expiated by embracing the One True Faith and voluntarily accepting the artogship it assigns. That implies white men are racially inferior. Treating a race as inferior is racist.

2. Irrespective of the lack of an objective criterion for "second-class citizen", ardtogs of all races widely perceive themselves to be "second-class citizens", due to being ardtogs. This is a sufficient explanation for an ardtog perceiving himself as a "second-class citizen". An additional explanation, such as "They look at life as a zero-sum game: unless they are always on top, some Other has taken what is their rightful due.", is an unnecessary hypothesis. And you would not accuse a 1950's-era black ardtog who saw himself as a "second-class citizen" of thinking so only because he looked at life as a zero-sum game and felt it his rightful due to be always on top.

Snowflakes going to meltdown, amiright?

 

[Politesse]

The USA definitely has a large group of second class citizens. Famous people such as Arnold Schwarzenegger are part of this group. These are people who are American citizens, but are ineligible to become POTUS, because of a weird rule about "natural born citizens".

Ask Haiti, Brazil, and Mexico why this was a good idea at the time. Pre WW European aristocracy hears about a power vacuum in a recently liberated nation, suddenly you got a boat full of twenty landless nobles volunteering their leadership expertise to your new republic. Purely out of charity of course.

 

[pood]

What they are not interested in is propping up a narrative that feeds the grievances of white men who absolutely resent no longer being first in line for all good things.

You know that's an ad hominem argument, don't you, and racist to boot?

An observation is not an argument. Since you have not demonstrated that observation exhibits antagonism or prejudice against white men, it is not clear how anyone could know that it is racist.

You appear to be relying on the premise that nobody knows anything until I personally demonstrate it. Any reasonable person who is fluent in English, has basic reading comprehension skills, and is aware that the context was a discussion of Affirmative Action, can tell her statement exhibits prejudice against white men simply by reading it. It isn't rocket science.

Tony is smearing white men who don't want to be second-class citizens as wanting everyone else to be a second-class citizen. She does not have evidence that they do -- it's an illogical inference for the same reason "I don't owe you money." does not imply "You owe me money.". It is prejudiced against white men because wanting everyone else to be a second-class citizen is a negative trait, and she is pre-judging a subset of white men as having that negative trait, without evidence against them, based only on color, sex, and uppity refusal to accept second-class citizen status.

And that's racist because she would not smear black men who who don't want to be second-class citizens as wanting everyone else to be a second-class citizen. She would not interpret uppity refusal to accept second-class citizen status as evidence of having that negative trait, in an uppity person who's black, or some other race she favors. She talks as though white men have no right to be uppity, no right to be first-class citizens, even though black men do. Assigning rights based on race is racist. She is treating whiteness as if it were a a form of guilt, an Original Sin that can only be expiated by embracing the One True Faith and voluntarily accepting the second-class citizenship it assigns. That implies white men are racially inferior. Treating a race as inferior is racist.

This is all nonsensical, since no one is treating white men as second-class citizens. What is happening instead is that many white men feel as if they are being treated as second-class citizens because of positive goods like DEi. They look at life as a zero-sum game: unless they are always on top, some Other has taken what is their rightful due.

Nobody owns the term "second-class citizen", so you'll define it as you please and debates over who is or isn't treated as one will go nowhere. So let's break this down into two parts.

1. I'll coin a new term. For decades white people have been Approved Racial Discrimination Targets Of Government. (See, for example, Fullilove v. Klutznick, US v. Paradise, Metro Broadcasting v. FCC). Let us call such people "ardtogs". More recently, Asians have also become ardtogs. (Grutter v. Bollinger.) Back in the benighted times before the Civil Rights era, black people and American Indians were ardtogs. By and large, they didn't like it. Most people do not want to be ardtogs.

Tony is smearing white men who don't want to be ardtogs as wanting everyone else to be an ardtog. She does not have evidence that they do -- it's an illogical inference for the same reason "I don't owe you money." does not imply "You owe me money.". It is prejudiced against white men because wanting everyone else to be an ardtog is a negative trait, and she is pre-judging a subset of white men as having that negative trait, without evidence against them, based only on color, sex, and uppity refusal to accept ardtog status.

And that's racist because she would not smear black men who who don't want to be ardtogs as wanting everyone else to be an ardtog. She would not interpret uppity refusal to accept ardtog status as evidence of having that negative trait, in an uppity person who's black, or some other race she favors. She talks as though white men have no right to be uppity, no right to be non-ardtogs, even though black men do. Assigning rights based on race is racist. She is treating whiteness as if it were a a form of guilt, an Original Sin that can only be expiated by embracing the One True Faith and voluntarily accepting the artogship it assigns. That implies white men are racially inferior. Treating a race as inferior is racist.

2. Irrespective of the lack of an objective criterion for "second-class citizen", ardtogs of all races widely perceive themselves to be "second-class citizens", due to being ardtogs. This is a sufficient explanation for an ardtog perceiving himself as a "second-class citizen". An additional explanation, such as "They look at life as a zero-sum game: unless they are always on top, some Other has taken what is their rightful due.", is an unnecessary hypothesis. And you would not accuse a 1950's-era black ardtog who saw himself as a "second-class citizen" of thinking so only because he looked at life as a zero-sum game and felt it his rightful due to be always on top

All this blathering is irrelevant because No. 1, in which you needlessly coin a new term, is false.

Also, it’s “Toni,” not “Tony.” Try at least to get that fact straight.

 

[pood]

On a minor, inconsequential note, Toni (not Tony) is using “laying” in that little descriptive thingy under his/her/their user name, when “lying” is wanted.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

1. I'll coin a new term. For decades white people have been Approved Racial Discrimination Targets Of Government. (See, for example, Fullilove v. Klutznick

Let’s look that up

Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448, was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the U.S. Congress could constitutionally use its spending power to remedy the effects of past discrimination. The case arose as a suit against the enforcement of provisions in a 1977 spending bill that required 10% of federal funds going towards public works programs to go to minority-owned companies.

So, to sum up - a policy that directed 10% of spending to be spent on 11.5% of the population makes the other 88.5% of the population who is receiving 90% of the spending into “Approved Racial Discrimination Targets”

Your math is not mathing, and so your made up definition is ridiculous. Those poor, unfortunate, racially targeted recipients of 90% of the spending!!

You're committing exactly the sin he's talking about!

1) This is blatant discrimination in favor of minority-owned businesses. Note the timeframe--not that long after the civil rights era. The percentage of businesses that were minority owned before the civil rights era was quite clearly less than their percentage in the population. This isn't going to magically change overnight when the civil rights measures were passed. Longstanding companies will likely be white owned, even in a system where you somehow waved a magic wand and removed all lingering effects you would still only expect 11.5% of the new businesses to be minority owned. Thus this is a big handout to the existing minority owned businesses and a slap in the face to everyone else.

2) The rest of the money businesses would bid normally one. No reason that process would not include minority businesses. Thus your 90% of the spending claim is pure fiction.

You are providing example A for why we are upset. You are endorsing blatant discrimination as fair and saying we are sinners for being white males. I haven't discriminated, why are you punishing me? Original sin is a Christian idea, I've never been a Christian. And when people do evil while thinking they are doing good they tend to be far more evil than those who know they are doing evil.

Just because the KKKers don't like something doesn't automatically make it a good thing. The world isn't divided into those who discriminate for whites and those who discriminate against whites, there are a large number of us who are neither. But because we reject discriminating against whites you think we are for discriminating for whites. No, a pox upon both houses!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What they are not interested in is propping up a narrative that feeds the grievances of white men who absolutely resent no longer being first in line for all good things.

You know that's an ad hominem argument, don't you, and racist to boot?

An observation is not an argument. Since you have not demonstrated that observation exhibits antagonism or prejudice against white men, it is not clear how anyone could know that it is racist.

You appear to be relying on the premise that nobody knows anything until I personally demonstrate it. Any reasonable person who is fluent in English, has basic reading comprehension skills, and is aware that the context was a discussion of Affirmative Action, can tell her statement exhibits prejudice against white men simply by reading it. It isn't rocket science.

Tony is smearing white men who don't want to be second-class citizens as wanting everyone else to be a second-class citizen. She does not have evidence that they do -- it's an illogical inference for the same reason "I don't owe you money." does not imply "You owe me money.". It is prejudiced against white men because wanting everyone else to be a second-class citizen is a negative trait, and she is pre-judging a subset of white men as having that negative trait, without evidence against them, based only on color, sex, and uppity refusal to accept second-class citizen status.

And that's racist because she would not smear black men who who don't want to be second-class citizens as wanting everyone else to be a second-class citizen. She would not interpret uppity refusal to accept second-class citizen status as evidence of having that negative trait, in an uppity person who's black, or some other race she favors. She talks as though white men have no right to be uppity, no right to be first-class citizens, even though black men do. Assigning rights based on race is racist. She is treating whiteness as if it were a a form of guilt, an Original Sin that can only be expiated by embracing the One True Faith and voluntarily accepting the second-class citizenship it assigns. That implies white men are racially inferior. Treating a race as inferior is racist.

This is all nonsensical, since no one is treating white men as second-class citizens. What is happening instead is that many white men feel as if they are being treated as second-class citizens because of positive goods like DEi. They look at life as a zero-sum game: unless they are always on top, some Other has taken what is their rightful due.

Nobody owns the term "second-class citizen", so you'll define it as you please and debates over who is or isn't treated as one will go nowhere. So let's break this down into two parts.

1. I'll coin a new term. For decades white people have been Approved Racial Discrimination Targets Of Government. (See, for example, Fullilove v. Klutznick, US v. Paradise, Metro Broadcasting v. FCC). Let us call such people "ardtogs". More recently, Asians have also become ardtogs. (Grutter v. Bollinger.) Back in the benighted times before the Civil Rights era, black people and American Indians were ardtogs. By and large, they didn't like it. Most people do not want to be ardtogs.

Tony is smearing white men who don't want to be ardtogs as wanting everyone else to be an ardtog. She does not have evidence that they do -- it's an illogical inference for the same reason "I don't owe you money." does not imply "You owe me money.". It is prejudiced against white men because wanting everyone else to be an ardtog is a negative trait, and she is pre-judging a subset of white men as having that negative trait, without evidence against them, based only on color, sex, and uppity refusal to accept ardtog status.

And that's racist because she would not smear black men who who don't want to be ardtogs as wanting everyone else to be an ardtog. She would not interpret uppity refusal to accept ardtog status as evidence of having that negative trait, in an uppity person who's black, or some other race she favors. She talks as though white men have no right to be uppity, no right to be non-ardtogs, even though black men do. Assigning rights based on race is racist. She is treating whiteness as if it were a a form of guilt, an Original Sin that can only be expiated by embracing the One True Faith and voluntarily accepting the artogship it assigns. That implies white men are racially inferior. Treating a race as inferior is racist.

2. Irrespective of the lack of an objective criterion for "second-class citizen", ardtogs of all races widely perceive themselves to be "second-class citizens", due to being ardtogs. This is a sufficient explanation for an ardtog perceiving himself as a "second-class citizen". An additional explanation, such as "They look at life as a zero-sum game: unless they are always on top, some Other has taken what is their rightful due.", is an unnecessary hypothesis. And you would not accuse a 1950's-era black ardtog who saw himself as a "second-class citizen" of thinking so only because he looked at life as a zero-sum game and felt it his rightful due to be always on top.

I’m not smearing anybody. What I wrote is that (some) white men perceive not always being first in line for all good things as being discriminated against when really, what has happened is that ever so slightly, the playing field is more level for those who are not white and male.

That’s not smearing anybody. If anyone is doing the smearing, it’s you, by time and again demonstrating that (some) white men perceive not being universally #1 as being discriminated against.

The problem is you feel that anyone who doesn't support your position is supporting the white-superior position. You do not accept the existence of a middle that takes a race-neutral position and rejects discrimination in either direction.

That said, I have long had some concerns that as girls and young women are being encouraged to explore math and science, boys and young men feel they are being pushed aside. As girls and persons of color and members of the LGBTQ community have gained acceptance, (some) white boys anbd young men are feeling pushed to the side. That’s not good—I know this as someone who was told often—by male teachers, no less, that it wasn’t good for girls to be smarter than boys, that boys were ‘naturally’ better at math and science—while I easily had the highest grades—and was told I got lucky. Not good job but that 100% is because you’re lucky.
Abd I was lucky to have parents who mostly did not have those attitudes and encouraged me to excel in those areas.

We need to do better in not discouraging ( white boys) anyone as we encourage those who had traditionally been excluded.

Yes, they feel they are being pushed aside because they are being pushed aside. When you bend over backwards to help anyone but white males the white males quite correctly perceive they are being punished for the sins of other white males.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

The USA definitely has a large group of second class citizens. Famous people such as Arnold Schwarzenegger are part of this group. These are people who are American citizens, but are ineligible to become POTUS, because of a weird rule about "natural born citizens".

Ask Haiti, Brazil, and Mexico why this was a good idea at the time. Pre WW European aristocracy hears about a power vacuum in a recently liberated nation, suddenly you got a boat full of twenty landless nobles volunteering their leadership expertise to your new republic. Purely out of charity of course.

And how does this relate to anything doing with the (current) USA? "Hi, I'm a European noble who wants to rule your nation." "It's King George in disguise; kill him (or laugh at him)."

 

[Politesse]

The USA definitely has a large group of second class citizens. Famous people such as Arnold Schwarzenegger are part of this group. These are people who are American citizens, but are ineligible to become POTUS, because of a weird rule about "natural born citizens".

Ask Haiti, Brazil, and Mexico why this was a good idea at the time. Pre WW European aristocracy hears about a power vacuum in a recently liberated nation, suddenly you got a boat full of twenty landless nobles volunteering their leadership expertise to your new republic. Purely out of charity of course.

And how does this relate to anything doing with the (current) USA? "Hi, I'm a European noble who wants to rule your nation." "It's King George in disguise; kill him (or laugh at him)."

We are pathologically unable of considering changes to our Constitution?

 

[Toni]

What they are not interested in is propping up a narrative that feeds the grievances of white men who absolutely resent no longer being first in line for all good things.

You know that's an ad hominem argument, don't you, and racist to boot?

An observation is not an argument. Since you have not demonstrated that observation exhibits antagonism or prejudice against white men, it is not clear how anyone could know that it is racist.

You appear to be relying on the premise that nobody knows anything until I personally demonstrate it. Any reasonable person who is fluent in English, has basic reading comprehension skills, and is aware that the context was a discussion of Affirmative Action, can tell her statement exhibits prejudice against white men simply by reading it. It isn't rocket science.

Tony is smearing white men who don't want to be second-class citizens as wanting everyone else to be a second-class citizen. She does not have evidence that they do -- it's an illogical inference for the same reason "I don't owe you money." does not imply "You owe me money.". It is prejudiced against white men because wanting everyone else to be a second-class citizen is a negative trait, and she is pre-judging a subset of white men as having that negative trait, without evidence against them, based only on color, sex, and uppity refusal to accept second-class citizen status.

And that's racist because she would not smear black men who who don't want to be second-class citizens as wanting everyone else to be a second-class citizen. She would not interpret uppity refusal to accept second-class citizen status as evidence of having that negative trait, in an uppity person who's black, or some other race she favors. She talks as though white men have no right to be uppity, no right to be first-class citizens, even though black men do. Assigning rights based on race is racist. She is treating whiteness as if it were a a form of guilt, an Original Sin that can only be expiated by embracing the One True Faith and voluntarily accepting the second-class citizenship it assigns. That implies white men are racially inferior. Treating a race as inferior is racist.

This is all nonsensical, since no one is treating white men as second-class citizens. What is happening instead is that many white men feel as if they are being treated as second-class citizens because of positive goods like DEi. They look at life as a zero-sum game: unless they are always on top, some Other has taken what is their rightful due.

Nobody owns the term "second-class citizen", so you'll define it as you please and debates over who is or isn't treated as one will go nowhere. So let's break this down into two parts.

1. I'll coin a new term. For decades white people have been Approved Racial Discrimination Targets Of Government. (See, for example, Fullilove v. Klutznick, US v. Paradise, Metro Broadcasting v. FCC). Let us call such people "ardtogs". More recently, Asians have also become ardtogs. (Grutter v. Bollinger.) Back in the benighted times before the Civil Rights era, black people and American Indians were ardtogs. By and large, they didn't like it. Most people do not want to be ardtogs.

Tony is smearing white men who don't want to be ardtogs as wanting everyone else to be an ardtog. She does not have evidence that they do -- it's an illogical inference for the same reason "I don't owe you money." does not imply "You owe me money.". It is prejudiced against white men because wanting everyone else to be an ardtog is a negative trait, and she is pre-judging a subset of white men as having that negative trait, without evidence against them, based only on color, sex, and uppity refusal to accept ardtog status.

And that's racist because she would not smear black men who who don't want to be ardtogs as wanting everyone else to be an ardtog. She would not interpret uppity refusal to accept ardtog status as evidence of having that negative trait, in an uppity person who's black, or some other race she favors. She talks as though white men have no right to be uppity, no right to be non-ardtogs, even though black men do. Assigning rights based on race is racist. She is treating whiteness as if it were a a form of guilt, an Original Sin that can only be expiated by embracing the One True Faith and voluntarily accepting the artogship it assigns. That implies white men are racially inferior. Treating a race as inferior is racist.

2. Irrespective of the lack of an objective criterion for "second-class citizen", ardtogs of all races widely perceive themselves to be "second-class citizens", due to being ardtogs. This is a sufficient explanation for an ardtog perceiving himself as a "second-class citizen". An additional explanation, such as "They look at life as a zero-sum game: unless they are always on top, some Other has taken what is their rightful due.", is an unnecessary hypothesis. And you would not accuse a 1950's-era black ardtog who saw himself as a "second-class citizen" of thinking so only because he looked at life as a zero-sum game and felt it his rightful due to be always on top.

I’m not smearing anybody. What I wrote is that (some) white men perceive not always being first in line for all good things as being discriminated against when really, what has happened is that ever so slightly, the playing field is more level for those who are not white and male.

That’s not smearing anybody. If anyone is doing the smearing, it’s you, by time and again demonstrating that (some) white men perceive not being universally #1 as being discriminated against.

The problem is you feel that anyone who doesn't support your position is supporting the white-superior position. You do not accept the existence of a middle that takes a race-neutral position and rejects discrimination in either direction.

That said, I have long had some concerns that as girls and young women are being encouraged to explore math and science, boys and young men feel they are being pushed aside. As girls and persons of color and members of the LGBTQ community have gained acceptance, (some) white boys anbd young men are feeling pushed to the side. That’s not good—I know this as someone who was told often—by male teachers, no less, that it wasn’t good for girls to be smarter than boys, that boys were ‘naturally’ better at math and science—while I easily had the highest grades—and was told I got lucky. Not good job but that 100% is because you’re lucky.
Abd I was lucky to have parents who mostly did not have those attitudes and encouraged me to excel in those areas.

We need to do better in not discouraging ( white boys) anyone as we encourage those who had traditionally been excluded.

Yes, they feel they are being pushed aside because they are being pushed aside. When you bend over backwards to help anyone but white males the white males quite correctly perceive they are being punished for the sins of other white males.

They are being ‘ pushed aside’ because after centuries or even millennium, they crowded out everyone who was not a member of the ‘in’ group. At various times in the US, that has included not just black people or native Americans or Asians but also, at various times, Germans, Irish and Jews and Catholics. It was understood that should anyone actually know someone who was Muslim Or Hindu or Sikh that if course they were foreigners.

FFS, in my lifetime, there were plenty of so called restricted clubs. There are even people today who believe that being descended from those who arrived on the Mayflower provides a sterling pedigree. And plenty who think led grew matters. Not t mention excluding women and anyone known to be gay.

Whether it is because western society has evolved enough to get angry enough or to have enough empathy or common sense to recognize that everyone in these many and varied off groups has been making substantial contributions in math, science, literature, art and music—and more without getting a actual credit for their work, I don’t know.

White mem are not being passed over so much as people who are not white men are actually being considered, hired, elected, published. You aren’t being ignored because you are now on equal footing with everyone else.

It is always rich when someone who was born in third base wants to maintain the status quo and say we are t going to notice the things that we used to exclude everyone else anymore because now it hurts US.